User talk:Bielle/Archives/2010/January

Socks!

[[1]] One good turn deserves another! I quite agree with you. Mhicaoidh (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was rather surprised to see a mild point of social criticism (embedded in a good answer) lead to all this chastising, when we get loads of truly unreflected opinion-crap on political themes dumped all over the desks without anyone being bothered. Mhicaoidh was quite right to point out that you were the only one who addressed and answered the question. Keep up the good work, Bielle. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I came here to stat a new section, but I see I'm not the first. I saw no girls, either, nor socks. Well done, you. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Mhicaoidh, for the link. I read the comments above before I saw any of the ruckus on the Ref Desk. Perhaps I criticized someone's favourite little "girl", or artist or medium, or perhaps someone just needed to be cranky and to bite someone who doesn't have a history of biting back. In the purest Ref Desk world, my social comment was tangential to my job of answering question, true. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! And thank you Sluzzelin and Milkbreath for your support of this miserable sinner. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Chillaxin'

I think that those who actually use this word (no offence to the OP) would be willing to accept unnecessary tautology [sic] for more added [sic] "coolness" or "respek" or whatever. Clearly, I'm not good at this.
BTW, this was one of the (many) ZooMisms that I just couldn't get. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

How about for more added "coolth"? ZooM writes often on the borderline of nonsense, so sometimes he crosses the line, but there is nearly always at least a fragment in anything he writes that makes me laugh. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation - I sometimes read ZooM's posts about 5 or 6 times and force myself to come to the painful conclusion that I've lost what little sense of humour I once had. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, I think ZooM is playing with the language in a way that is seldom seem in someone who is not a native speaker, and even many native speakers would not be up for the challenge. For that gift alone, I will accept not always "getting it." ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As will I. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Bielle

Hi, Bielle. I was thinking of you only yesterday. I hadn't seen your witty posts on the Ref Desk for a while and I was going to send you a message to see if you were still among the living. Before I got around to it, you put my mind at rest by popping in to post an answer on the Language desk about "focussing". Welcome back. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Jack. I have mostly been reading, not writing. The Ref Desk questions have not been inspiring to me of late. You did make me laugh a day or so ago with a remark about god possibly being a black female, incarnated as a white male. In response, I typed up quite a long paragraph, including mention of Oliver Sacks's new book Musicophilia, though how all that was tied together, I have forgotten. Some short, sharp collapse of the WP servers caught me in mid-save, and I hadn't the heart to re-type it all. I am here, among the living and the almost living. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I do enjoy Sacks' books. I had the pleasure of having lunch with him once and he was a very nice chap indeed. Rockpocket 00:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I am still working on Musicophilia. I don't have a strong background in music, and, while he writes for the layperson, in this case it's for a layperson who has studied music. Now that's a lunch, Rockpocket, I'd have paid to attend. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Although, I found Musicophilia a little disjointed and strangely unsatisfying. For once, I agreed with the critics. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

hey up bielle

yeah i know don't see me for ages, then when you do it involves sex, typical man for you! Havn't been around much, busy summer with the kids and have changed jobs - before = stressful job, stuck behind desk but + access to wiki, new job, havn't seen a desk in months - no access till nighttime = too busy. but would rather be happy at work and this new job is so much less stress (spent first few days just adjusting to a different pace of things, worrying that i should not be able to just sit and chat with someone, that i had to be on the phone at the same time and catching up on case work on the computer...) now i can spend quality time with people, get to know them, develop meaniful and productive relationships and make a difference in their lives - the very reason i became involved in social work! eldest member of the tribe began primary school on tuesday, big day, for a big girl, newest member celebrated his first birthday a few weeks past and we held a thanks-giving ceremony the following day and middle mankster used his potty for first time (then peed on the rug) ah bless em all! have popped into wiki now and then and i'm glad i still see your name (along with jacks and rockpocket) appearing on the ref desks, some things should never change - how's mount washing done? I climbed to the top of ours last night, armed with my trusty iron, but some how it has reappeared during the night (goblins, assures eldest mankster tribe member, not her new school clothes) so off again, and kitchen floor needs a wash i notice as i type away, you and mr bielle take care and i will promise to get back to the ref desk more often (espically as the subject matter has developed some what!) P.S. click on larrymacs link, March the 14th sounds like a day to mark in the calender! love Perry-mankster (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

oooh just read jacks post, here here on that lunch, The man who.. one of those books that made me think instead of merely read... lucky git, that rockpocketPerry-mankster (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sighing and moving on

Verily, Bielle. Well, I'm going to take this opportunity for a rant before I sigh and move on. The discussion about visiting cards and misspelled correspondence caused me to reflect that communication is not just about the words and sentences the writer uses, and the meaning they want to convey. When they misspell words and use inappropriate punctuation and grammar, they're also communicating a separate message - they don't care. Well, that's the impression the reader gets, and first impressions are SO important. The trouble is, we can't sheet the blame home to the writers in every case, because these days they're simply not taught about many of the things that people of our generation took for granted. Or if it comes up in class, it's glossed over as if it's only really relevant to professional writers, and the great mass of people who use the language don't need to worry too much about it. It's as if spelling words correctly is some sort of arcane discipline that we shouldn't allow ourselves the luxury of indulging in, because life is too short. I mean, come on. Teachers have a responsibility to tell their charges that all writers, in all circumstances, should consider themselves professionals, and actually give a damn, whether they're being paid for it or not. Getting by with the bare minimum is a hopeless standard, and the results of these educational policies speak for themselves. The teachers themselves are typically young folk in their 20s, and they themselves were not taught what they should have been taught, and so on, all the way back to whenever society started to go so badly wrong. The other problem is that many readers of badly written correspondence are completely unaware it's badly written, because they come from the same educational cohort as the writers. They wouldn't know a run on sentence or a misplaced modifier if it hit them over the head. So, what we often have nowadays is the ignorant communicating with the ignorant. Thank God for you and me. There, I've said it. I know I'm preaching to the converted, but maybe someone else will read this and do something positive. Now, I'll sigh and move on. Thanks for your forbearance. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hang-on-tag

Thanks, Bielle. If you hadn't added the hang-on tag, I would have within a short time anyway; but it's good to know my friends are looking out for me. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Bielle. You're not going to believe this, but I think I've chucked it out. It came from a newspaper clipping, an article on Morris West in one of the weekend papers from about 10 years ago. I've amassed a huge number of clippings over the years, of information I could not possibly do without - but always wondering just exactly how I'd ever use them. Then Wikipedia put its hand up, and since then I've been systematically going through them and adding in bits that are appropriate to the project. Unless I'm anticipating some argy-bargy, I simply throw the clipping out. I normally add my source, but in this case it seemed like something that would have been well known, and an online cite would be a cinch to find. Perhaps if I hadn't been so lazy and tried to track down such a cite myself, I would have discovered it's not supported. If you've had trouble confirming the date, that strongly suggests to me that the exact coincidence of dates was a trifle hyperbolic. I'd happily believe the book was published in the same week (it reached #1 on 30 June, 27 days after John XXIII's death), but I'd now need a little more convincing to believe the 2 events happened on exactly the same date. McDowell may simply have been repeating the hyperbole he believed in good faith. Maybe we'd need to go to the publisher to get the facts. Drat you, Bielle - you've crushed one of my most recent new bits of favourite trivia. In the meantime, I could not be party to including information on Wikipedia that I have doubts about (even if qualified by a cite tag), because it will just turn up on thousands of trivia lists as if it were indisputably true - so I think it ought to disappear for now, until such time as my original source can be confirmed, if that ever happens.

Segue? Most people I know say "seg-way". Is there something I ought to be aware of? Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

GBS would be proud of you: "should" pronounced to rhyme with "leg" - I suspect you meant "league", not "should".  :)

Now, I've learned something. I always knew segue wasn't French, but I actually thought it was Spanish, not Italian. I think it's a more serviceable term than "attaca" in general contexts. "This neatly segues into that" vs. "This neatly attacas into that". I think I prefer the former. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Update

Good news, Bielle. I've possibly confirmed the date - see Talk:The Shoes of the Fisherman#Publication date. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent detective work, that! Thanks for letting me know. I have put a comment in support on the Shoes page. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

8 5, 8 5

He he (snicker, chortle, guffaw, smirk).  :) --

Offline Q answered online

...at my talk page. --- OtherDave (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Shrinking bot signatures

Is there a compelling reason to go around and repeatedly shrink the size of the bot-signed threads at various talk pages? All it seems to be doing is adding a largely meaningless edit to all the pages in question. I mean, there are probably better things to do at Wikipedia... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And for certain browsers, it's having the effect of actually enlarging the sigs; IE6 (not my choice) doesn't seem to recognize "smallest", so the sigs in question default to normal size. --LarryMac | Talk 17:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what actually is accomplished here, and is there any consensus or discussion of it somewhere? The templates themselves are not changed, so you're boxing at a waterfall until there is consensus to change there. DMacks (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I will reply here as I don't know of a better central place. About a month ago, SineBot started showing up with these huge signatures for its automatic sign. I found them irritating (as I do the likes of say Little Red Riding Hoodtalk, but that's User and not a Bot, so I wouldn't dream of interfering). I went first to User:Slakr. Slakr asked for diffs, which I provided, but nothing happened, except that Slakr noted that there had been a problem with large font size, but that it had been fixed. So, I kept watching and these large, distorting signatures kept coming up. I have IE and what I meant to achieve was simply to make the Bot signatures the same size as the rest of the text on the page. When I look at the Ref Desk pages after my changes, the huge ones are now normal size. (I had no intention to make them smaller than the rest of the text.) In reference to User:Jayron32's remark about "better things to do", tidying up and making things consistent is usually part of an editor's job; that's what I intended to be doing.

I also went looking for a template change or agreement to change the template when I first noticed that the automatc Bot signature was now larger than the standard, but I couldn't find the first change. That's why I went to Slakr. I think the fallback is that that the Bot signatures should be the same font size as the standard automatic signature for all of us. Perhaps you were all seeing a standard size all along, and I was the only one who saw these huge ones. If so, I apologize and I won't do it again.

As for why I suddenly chose to make what are really very minor changes, I can't say anything more than the distortion was irritating me and I tried to fix it. I was not trying to make a change from a standard size, but rather to return to a standard size. User:DMacks's right, and I like the metaphor, that I am "boxing a waterfall" unless the template is changed. If someone can just point me to where the first change came in and to the discussion of the size increase (if it did change and I am not just "seeing things"), I would be grateful. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sex on Fire

Hey, thanks for the heads up and answer. I honestly had no idea that I couldn't move my question to the bottom of the page, I'm not for intentionally stepping on anybody's toes here. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. It's not that you can't do it. For example, I doubt anyone would move it back. It's just a matter of etiquette and not something you would know unless (a) someone tells you or (b) you hang around the Ref Desks a lot. As for your question, with a title like "Sex on Fire", you can bet the house that everyone who has been to the page has read the question. Many may have made a initial search for an answer for you but stopped, as I did, because there is, apparently, not even a definitive version of the lyrics available. Unless a raving King of Leons' fan happens to pass by, that may be the best you get. Now, if you want someone to interpret a poem only available in Chinese and written in an obscure literary code from the 1300s, or to interpret the lyrics from a Thomas Tallis piece, the Ref Desk is really speedy. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

tax on lottery

Does the Canadian government tax your interest that you made from the lottery money in the bank? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes. All income earned on the winnings is taxable. It is just the initial amount that attracts no tax. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I predict..

..That Harper will ask the GG to prorouge the 40th Parliament until late January 2009 (she'll agree). Thus ineffect, we Canadians will be bombarded with Conservative & Coalition support ads (basically an unofficial election campaign). GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You cannot imagine how very much I hope you are wrong. Leaving aside personal feelings about Harper, and his desperate bid to hang on to power, it is the fact that his desperation would then be doing serious harm to the country that horrifies me. Canada (or almost any other nation at the moment) cannot be caught up in this idiocy at this moment. Harper tried bully tactics on his budget, thinking, I suspect, that the opposition would be too cowed by the ecomonic conditions to risk what saying "No" might mean. Instead of caving, they have taken a legal and appropriate measure, one specifically designed for such a situation. Harper's bluff has been called; he lost. Now he pays a price, but the country shouldn't also have to pay one. Of course, what I hope against hope won't happen has no influence whatsoever on what will happen. You may be right, especially given that there is a Christmas break coming anyway. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Canada's has got some interesting days, ahead. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You were right, Good Day, and, for me, this is not one - a "good day" I meant. So, as you suggested above, we wait around now for 2 flipping months while the toilet keeps getting flushed and all the plumbers are out spending our money, not on supplies or other plumbers, or even on fixing the toilet, but on advertising to say how good they are at the job they are not doing. I need to breathe deeply and get back to painting. I am afraid to take my blood-pressure reading. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

By the time Jan 26th comes along, the proposed coalition government plan, will have evaporated. As for Harper? the Conservatives will (sometime in 2009) begin focusing on their next party leader. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If the coalition has vanished because Harper has come up with a budget that works, then so be it. I don't think that it will otherwise vanish, however. Given my success rate in predicting what was going to happen with the G-G, I might have to put my money on your guess, but never my heart or even my head. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Bob Rae has already said there's nothing Harper can present (on the economy) that would make him re-think the coalition idea (yikes). GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think Harper actually will be able to present anything acceptable on the economy without admitting it is in deep shit, something he has been pretending isn't really happening for quite some time, I also don't like Rae's attitude if that is what he believes. I suspect it is almost all grandstanding at the moment, from everyone. Any possible deal is weeks away. I did enjoy the new quote I have at the top of my page, though. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The suspension of Parliament is kinda hypacritical of Harper (concerning the democracy talk). He's delaying (& hoping to avoid) a confidence vote. Also, the coalition in their response to Parliament being suspended, is being hypacritical (concerning democracy talk), as they're preposing to becoming the government without the people's consent (i.e an election). The quote? it's neat. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, it is inherent in our political system that the election of a minority government has, as one natural consequence, a mandate for a coalition of members of parliament of more than one party to run the government. We do not require another election for the leader of the governing group, or, indeed, any or all of its members to change. There is no requirement to go back to the electorate as long as the new coalition has the confidence of the parliament we elected. There is nothing hypocritical about proposing a coalition government absent another election. There is a great deal of hypocrisy in everyone's determination to win at whatever the cost to the Canadian public. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I think after the 26th January 2009, if the Harper government is defeated, the GG will dissolve the 40th Parliament & call a federal election. I'm just wondering, will the Liberals & NDP run in a joint-campaign. The Liberals having 154 candidates & the NDP 154 candidates (neither facing each other throughout the 308 ridings)? The coalition (via the Liberals) need to dump Dion sooner, rather then later. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I really hate your predictions, GoodDay, especially as you have established credentials for being right. What a terrible waste of time and money another election would be, and how very unpopular, I would think, with taxpayers even other than me! If this all comes down to a failed confidence vote on the budget at the end of January, I hope the G-G gives a coalition a chance first. I think if Dion has proof that he has the confidence of the House, she must do so, but we need a constitutional scholar here to be certain. If the NDP and Liberals were to make some such compromise, I suspect it wouldn't be through an even split of the ridings, but only where it seemed likely that one party had a chance of beating the Conservatives. For example, out my way, no one came even close to touching the Conservative incumbent. And then there is the matter of the total popular vote to consider and I don't believe either party would give up anything there by choice. Their supporters might mutiny. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain. But, if the GG refuses dissolving the 40th Parliament (at Harper's request) & instead calls on the coalition to take office (at Dion, Layton's request). Harper might ask the Canadian monarch to either replace Michelle Jean or over-rule her & dissolve Parliament (again I'm not certain, if this is possible). GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Note however - it's very rare in Canada, that a Governor General rejects a Prime Minister's recommendation. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As someone pointed out on another forum, the G-G is, techically, Harper's boss. Initially, she asked him to form the government. He can be "unasked" in the right circumstances. I'd also be surprised if he could over-rule her, especially if the majority of the members of the House oppose him. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

True. GG Jean (on behalf of the Canadian monarch) appointed Harper as Prime Minister on February 6, 2006 & she can fire him aswell. Also, the Canadian monarch can reverse the firing (however, Elizabeth II getting involved is unlikely, as she doesn't even delve into British politics). GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm all right, Jack

Yeah, no, it's just one of them things we say.  :) Funny that we never say "Merry Chrissy", but we do refer to "Chrissy" in less set contexts - "Are you having time off at Chrissy?", and that sort of thing. Yuletide felicitations to you too, dear Bielle, and may you get lots of "Chrissy prezzies". -- JackofOz (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Jingle Bielles

Well, so when I got the post office, they told me that mailing pipers piping, maids a-milking, lords a-leaping and drummers drumming was against the postal regulations. A bit miffed, I decided to dress up as a partridge cockatoo in a pear tree. Merry Christmas from Helmut. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

My, but you have made me laugh this morning, and with 10 cm of new snow that needs to be shovelled from 200 feet of decking, and that after the 15 cm we moved from the same places just yesterday, laughter is currently in short supply. We do a good business in complaining, grimacing and whingeing, though. While I am at it, thanks for many laughs over the year. You do have a fine, and sometimes underappreciated, gift for playing with the language. Joyeux Noël et bonne et heureuse année, Helmut. Merci beaucoup! "Jingle Bielles" now, really! I will think of you when I use it. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC) P.S. UPS will take your maids, lords and drummers, but only if you pack then securely in their component parts, and it will cost you your five gold rings. Oh yes, and don't forget the "Some assembly required" notices on the boxes. BL

Patent law

Hahaha, I actually meant it seriously... I was feeling really bored, and was hoping to find something written in a more "entertaining", story-book manner. I am expecting too much probably. Glad it made you laugh :D Cheers! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I was able to find a book called "Landis on Mechanics of Patent Drafting" which covers drafting patent applications and has a VERY fine sprinkiling of humor (one subtle joke every two chapters or so lol:D) ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel the post ... move ... under my feet

Oh dear. Of course this wasn't intentional, how could you know I was answering? You did the right thing, trying to remove at first sight, before the threads grew in parallel, and I just reacted grumpily and passive-aggressively. It is I who apologizes for calling you officious in my edit summary. You are not. And I wish you a shockingly wonderful 2009 as well, dear Bielle! ---Sluzzelin talk 03:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

From squish ...

... to thish

As my grandsons are convinced I am the softest teddy bear in the world, caving in immediately to their every 2- and 4-year-old whim, it was, at least, an interesting change of pace to be thought to have enough gumption to rise to up from complete squish to officious. I was amused more than anything else. And may your 2009 be potent, prosperous and peaceful. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckle. I am allergic to horses and they don't make the red coats in my size, but otherwise, you are exactly right. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The great Canadian novel ... perhaps?

Wow, that could be the start of a great short story, Bielle. Or even the great Canadian novel. Well, what are you waiting for? Hop to it, times a-wastin'. Lovely to hear from you, and many good wishes to you and yours, Bielle. Cheers from a still unseasonably cool Down Under. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

wotcha bielle

appie nu yeer ('ic!) how's things bielle? Havn't been visiting much, needed an answer to something technical so came on site and wanted to catch up with your good self. family doing well, youngest is now walking, middle peeing everywhere and eldest knows everything because she is a big girl now who goes to school (daddy!). I have aquired a new skill, i have learnt picture framing (we run a vocational skills room in the centre where i work) Mrs Mankster jokes to people that they shouldn't stand still for too long or i will frame them. Hope everything is well with you and yours (did Mr Bielle's hospital stay work out ok?).Right I'm off to swear at my new MP3 player some more. love Perry-mankster (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Burnt up indeed

Thanks for being concerned, Bielle. Yesterday (7 February) was the hottest day in the recorded history of most places in Victoria. It got to 48 degrees in one place (= 118.4 Fahrenheit; that's in the shade, of course). It was 50 outside our place, but a lot cooler inside, so we stayed indoors with the doors and windows shut. There are massive fires all over the state, and the latest official death toll as of half an hour ago is 35, but expected to go higher. We're about 100 km from the nearest fire, so no danger, but we got a huge cloud of smoke yesterday that turned day into night from 2:30 pm onwards. The winds were extreme, even for a normally very windy place like Maffra. We got some light drizzle last night, and today is much more comfortable, but the house, the cars, and anything outside are covered in dark brown sludge. Most radio stations in Gippsland are off the air, but the ABC is still functioning (on reduced power) so we're getting constant reports about what's going on. Television reception is gone, except for Channel 10 (the station I watch least, unfortunately; and, dammit, I was going to tape a broadcast of my favourite opera La bohème on ABCTV this afternoon, but that will have to wait for another time). That's the least of our worries, though, when we reflect that 35+ people are dead. Up north, Ingham, Queensland is totally inundated by flood waters. Such is life on the land of Oz at the moment. Dorothea Mackellar was on the money when she wrote of a land of droughts and flooding rains. Cheers, Bielle. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I never thought I would say this, but . . . I'd rather have winter, even winter as we know it, than what you are experiencing. The hottest place I have ever been was Ayers Rock about 10:00 am of a January morning: 52 degrees F. I went straight back into the air-conditioned bus. The flies and then the heat were just too much. The coldest I have ever experienced was -53 degrees F at Lake Louise in Alberta. 100 km (or even miles) is not that far away where high winds, drought and fire are concerned. How do you keep breathing in that temperature if your electricity goes off? We are out in the country so we have a generator that can run the a/c, but not for long, and not if we want to do anything else, like read or cook or shower. (And, now that I think of it, a generator needs fuel, and I wouldn't want to be thinking about a forest fire raging through my bright yellow canisters of back-up supply.) Do keep alert, whether you hate the station or not; we need you. ¤₳₳ BL ₵₳¤ (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't really understand

Copied from Nil Einne (talk). This is how I started the mess.

I am removing this from the Ref Desk as I don't want to appear to add to a soap-box debate I shouldn't have joined in the first place. While I don't hold you responsible for the content of the clarification, and I do thank you for your desire to make this matter clear, it remains double talk or bafflegab, if you like, to most of us. Any person held in continuing custody by an enemy power, whether lawful combatant, protected person, civilian or unlawful combatant is entitled to be treated humanely. There may be agreed and accepted differences in their several rights to trial, comunication and other "privileges", but not even Bush, with all his twisting and turning, eliminated the right to humane treatment for every category of prisoner. "Humane treatment" means not subject to "physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion". Waterboarding is a form of coercion. It is unacceptable behaviour, especially from a country that makes much of its humanity. Please don't feel under attack, even if you don't agree with me. This is in no way personal. It became a rant at about the third word and I lack the discipline this morning just to erase it. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand what your are arguing about to be honest. It seems your ranting at me about Bush which is somewhat ironic since I probably dislike Bush more then you and have no desire to hear random rants at Bush that have nothing to do with me. The Bush argument was that there people were neither civilians nor POWs and therefore were not protected by US and international law (a sort of legal blackhole). All international human rights organisations disagreed that such a distinction existed in international law and argued the intention was the people should either be treated as POWs (in which case they could legally engage in war under certain conditions and should only generally be held as long as the war was ongoing) or as civilians (in which case any and all killings commited would be unlawful acts and could legally be held as prisoners if they are tried and found guilty of any crime including for example actions which would be legitimate if they were a military force). The fact that you and most of the world disagreed with the Bush idea doesn't change the fact this was their argument. As I though was obvious, I was disgusted with the Bush doctrine as well but this doesn't change the fact it was their argument and the key controversy was not that Bush refused to classify them as POWs (which many people didn't care that much about) and which 98.s post seem to suggest but the fact they argued they were neither POWs or civilians and so entitle to no protection. If Bush has decided to treat them as civilians, as it appears Obama plans to do, and prosecuted them as civilians in US courts with ther appropriate guarantees provided for civilians by US and international law, many people would not have minded. If Bush had treated them as POWs with the appropriate protections as guaranteed under US and international law and tried them for war crimes people wouldn't have minded so much either. But the problem was Bush invented a new definition, which most people felt had never existed, and tried to argue it meant none of the normal rules applied. Bush may have been bad, but I have to admit, I don't really agree with your view that the US is some sort of beacon of humanity. They have never been, it's simply a myth they've liked to perpetuate. They got worse under Bush, but they were always far from any ideal and if there was one good thing Bush did, it was perhaps make people see the US for what they really were and not what they liked to pretend to be which while I'm sure Americans may hate is ultimately IMHO good for the world. I'm just hoping the Obama mania doesn't make people forget the lessons Bush thought us. Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am convinced now I should just have gone with my first instinct and deleted my text. It is a rant, true, but not, not, at you. Quite the contrary. I assumed, from the way in which you had worded your clarification, that we were likely to be in agreement on the principles and that your page would thus be a safe place to park my rant. You would know what touched it off, but, sharing most of the views, would not feel under attack. That I might have misinterpreted your being in agreement, I thought I covered by "Please don't feel under attack, even if you don't agree with me". The Ref Desk section, on the other hand, would not have been safe as I would there have been adding more fuel to the fire. As for "a country that makes much of its humanity", my irony meter was obviously set way too low. In short, I humbly and deeply apologise for any distress I have caused you, however inadvertently. I always advised editors I supervised that if someone can read what you have written and conclude it means something other than you meant it to mean, the fault is in the the writing and not the reading. I wrote poorly and you have been upset as a consequence. Please feel free to remove it all, though there may be a lesson in here useful to others in how not to start a rant. I have inserted the whole onto my page for that reason. The good part is that your Sunday can only improve from here. I am so very sorry. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust etc

When we see something that seems to be from the pen of an insane person, we naturally try to use logic to counter the argument, in an (in this case, vain) attempt to help them see reason. It seems to have been futile in this instance, but at least we'll never be accused of letting such absurdities stand without some kind of rejoinder. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

...the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli civilian deaths?|

Greetings, B.L.! I'm a latecomer to this RD/H discussion and responded (gently, I hope :-) to content of yours. Please check the page's history for my two contributions, which you may find of interest. Good to see you there! -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Deborahjay. Facts are always welcome in a discussion generally inclined more to heat than light. Your credentials in such matters are impeccable. I did take a deeper look at the IDF page than I had given it when I made the comment you have linked. First a baby rant, and not directed at you. I have always hated Info Boxes for the same reason I hate summaries of legal documents. In both cases, the reader may need to draw on qualifying details to draw a conclusion on which it is right or just to take action. And yet, again in both cases, the "facts" are presented in such a way as to suggest they need no further thought. I apologize for even having looked at the Info Box and especially for having used that information to draw an incorrect conclusion. I know better, even if that knowledge is limited to the way in which I should not have gathered the information and not connected to the information itself. Your correction is gentleness itself and, having read more, I shall go back to the question and confirm my error. I appreciate that you have dropped by to keep me posted. So few would have bothered. I am grateful. // BL \\ (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref desk

While I appreciate your concern for keeping matters serious, in my experience it's considered borderline uncivil to edit someone else's comments without a compelling reason. I don't believe there was a compelling reason here.
1) The first link you removed from my comment isn't composed of "real people," they're composites. 2) The second link you removed is a parody site, not someone's genuine homepage. 3) If you believe you have useful advice for how I should copyedit my comments, it's more than welcome at my talk page. It's not overmuch welcome in the form of editing my comments. arimareiji (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the following between your comments. (The first paragraph above was the only one on my page when the "New Messages" box went up. The second paragraph caused an edit conflict with the indented paragraph below):

What I should have done was to come to your talk page to ask you either to remove the links and comments, or to make your point clear. You are right to call me on that and I apologise. The ambiguity that I saw was that you were suggesting one or both of the subject groups or individuals as inappropriate, or at least surprising, breeding partners. As these were all possibly identifiable individuals, I found the connections disturbing. It was not a lack of seriousness to which I objected, but perhaps a much-too-serious, and nasty, possibility. These are BLP matters, and I think that the normal rules about not editing other's remarks do not then apply; in almost any other instance, I would agree with you. You may continue to disagree, of course. I did carefully mark both the removal and the reason so that you and others might judge the action for yourselves. I did not, I believe, change the significance, meaning or nuance of what remains; I just deleted what I thought was an uncomfortable aside. I will not argue over any concensus to put it back. // BL \\ (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(After e/c) I appreciate your explanation of the photos. As there is no way of telling from the links that these facts are as you describe them, I would still want them removed or better explained in the comment. (The fact that I don't feel it is a joke to identify groups as inappropriate breeding material on a public site where others may identify themselves or people they care about with the images is a matter of personal opinion, and thus not relevant to an emergency revert, as it were.) Once again, I apologise for not connecting with you first. // BL \\ (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for EC'ing you, but the more I thought about it the less comfortable I felt with leaving the second paragraph at the refdesk. It seemed to belong much more on a "semi-private" talk page, rather than "in public." And my apologies for the snippiness of the response, regardless. I've dealt with a few editors lately who think it's "cute" and "funny" to edit others' comments, and have a little too much frustration built up on this topic - I shouldn't have vented it on you.

Wrt joking about some people not being good breeding material, I had serious second thoughts about whether to revert because this is a valid point - it is an ugly insinuation to make about anyone. The reason I finally went with reverting was that IMO it makes a clear illustration of the idea that "attractiveness" and "genetic fitness" often coincide, much better than words could. That, and the wishful thinking that those poor souls have managed to remain mostly-anonymous despite the relative fame of that page.

I reaaaaaally hope I don't EC you again, but I wanted to add a postscript I thought you'd want to hear - I did remove the "Trailer Park Page" link, because the more I thought about what you said the less comfortable I was with it. arimareiji (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is neither "cute" nor "funny" to edit others' signed comments, and I am sorry you are experiencing yet more :-)of such rudeness. I found your remarks to me to be direct, as was my action, but understood no unreasonable snippiness. And I do appreciate that you have rethought your comments on the Ref Desk. Obviously, given your entirely sensible responses in this thread, if I had contected you first, in my most polite, "enquiring minds want to know" manner, we both could have been saved a lot of typing. It has been a pleasure doing volunteer work with you. // BL \\ (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

RD Formatting

Regarding this edit: My apologies if you feel that I incorrectly inserted my statement in a manner which appeared to change the context of your own comment. After an edit conflict I added indentation to my comment (an extension of WP:LCF) to distinguish that I was replying to Steve and that your reply was also directed to Steve. (This may or may not be technically supported by policy, but I thought the result was clear.) Again, I'm sorry if you didn't find the formatting clear; I assure you that I wasn't trying to "hijack" your comment. – 74  01:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's okay. I didn't presume you were, though I didn't recognize the convention for indenting you were using. I don't spend a lot of time on the Net aside from Wikipedia. Perhaps other forums use different conventions. I think WP prefers the chronologicial sequence to be kept within a thread, with an @ where the comment is a specific response to an individual, or some other indicator that takes the reader back to the original point. So, I wasn't unhappy with what you did, nor did I assume anything of hijacking; I just wanted my response to be clear. I have, myself, inserted comments partway through a thread, when a space was at the bottom of my screen, but it was not, in fact, the end of the section. No worries, and thanks for the note. // BL \\ (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you got it right, all right!

...with the "wicked son". Frankly, I was so offended by StuRat with his depressingly predictible sanctimonious, sniggering tone on behalf of those abused by my supposedly baffling remarks (though I rather enjoyed the guide-dog repartee above it), I blew off rather a lot of steam in collateral directions while suppressing a taut reply there. (He is a User with whom I've tangled more than enough in my relatively brief tenure on the RD and have drawn a line at ever again engaging him directly.) I bestowed all the virtual douze pointes on Nil Einne because (a) a Malaysian New Zealander should be encouraged in so neatly tackling Jewish parables for the masses, and (b) really getting all that I'd intended would've required superhuman traits such as mindreading. You were right on, but I believe you and I have a rapport that goes back a ways? You're always welcome to chime in as you see fit; I will respect your criticisms when due, and support as might be needed. (The Holocaust/Israel/Jewish topics I tackle are bound to result in the occasional flareup, but when they get rather frequent I'm known to miss my timing :-/ -- w/appreciation, Deborahjay (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind the OPs, that exchange encapsulates the RD - and its denizens - in a nutshell. Rockpocket 17:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Rockpocket. Yes, some rant, some indirection, some humour, some opinion, some chastisement, some misunderstanding, some appeasement, some fact, with the balance changing by the second; that does seem to describe the RD at work, and at play. // BL \\ (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Deborahjay.

I did write my response in what I hope was a light-hearted tone. Except in art, which is my current passion, I have never been at the bottom of the class, but I would have to have assumed you and all others also knew that was the reason the remark was funny. There is certainly nothing on Wikipedia that would make the point for me. We were both looking for mind readers, it would seem.

Just for explaining your comment in terms enlightening without being patronizing meant Nil Einne deserved all 12 pointes. I laughed aloud when I read The Four Sons because, having been a part of one of the exchanges to which you were referring, the connection seemed so very obvious. For those who were not a part of the mess, the reference was perhaps too subtle. (The "blind" exchange was both funny and effective, a great combination.)

There is something vaguely creepy about those who claim an affiliation, claim to be supportive of the affiliated group and then try to use that membership as permission to issue unsupported, negative judgements about its other members or its beliefs and behaviours. (I have to insert here, before someone comes along and accuses me of something I am not saying: this does not mean that genuine dissent or disagreement with the group is in any way suppressed. The key word are "unsupported", "negative" and "judgements".) In my opinion, there is no such free pass on WP, though there may be (and that is a highlly qualified "may be") in real life within the group itself. Adding to that view the fact that claims of affiliation cannot be verified on WP and we have "wicked son" turning into "troll" before our eyes. I have a very similar problem with those who turn contentious or defamatory statements into questions as if the real intent were somehow mitigated by an "enquiring minds want to know" approach. "Does Famous Person X really have sex with small, furry animals?" "Do (Catholics, Jews, black, gays, . . . fill in the blank) believe Some Ugly Idea?" Garbage is garbage and polite, seemingly otherwise educated contributors do the most damage with theirs as they are harder to detect at the beginning. Well, now that's off my chest, I may get dressed and set up my paints. Oh bliss!). :-\ // BL \\ (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? Good question

Heh. You might well ask. Maybe you're a masochist. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with "assign against"

71.236.24.129 (talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Enjoy!

And just in time for dinner! Thank you. // BL \\ (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

So you watched the video and counted the passes...but...

(Answering here instead of on the ref desk in order not to spoil the effect for other people)

But - did you see the guy in the gorilla suit?

99% of people go..."Eh? What guy in the gorilla suit?" - but watch the video again without counting - you won't believe that you could POSSIBLY have missed something so blatent, silly, obvious. You'd have testified to the cops that the guy in the gorilla suit was nowhere in sight...that's why eye witnesses are unreliable.

SteveBaker (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't see a guy in a gorilla suit. I did "know" that there was something going on among the players in black but couldn't have said what it was. That's amazing - so amazing I had to go back and check on it! Thanks for the information and for the lesson! // BL \\ (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I did see the gorilla, but I was trying to work out if the people in black were throwing the ball to the people in white and I in fact rewound once or twice (before the gorilla appeared) so didn't follow the rules properly. Actually I'm pretty sure I've read about this before although I don't believe I've seen it nor did it click until afterwards what I was watching. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

6E (triple wide) steel-toed leather work boots

Thanks for the quick pickup!! First look-through isn't quite on target: in steel-toed the size jumps from 11 to 12, and having to order by catalog from overseas without trying on makes this a bit tricky, especially as his feet are high-arched and rather malformed. Local orthopedic shoemakers don't bother making steel-toed work boots; possibly the conventional wisdom is that someone needing such footgear is simply in an unsuitable line of work. (The employment picture in our semirural area makes this rather a moot point; one gets and keeps a job where one possibly can.) But it's a promising start as that website looks quite reputable; I'll sign you off for Good Deed for the Day! -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to click on "edit" for the question when the yellow "you have a message" bar came up. I had re-read your question, and saw that you wanted to know about the specific boot, and not just any steel-toed workboot in that size. I understand the problem. I buy my own shoes three pair at a time, once I know they fit, to get 'round the problem of finding the same thing a number of years later. I wish you luck. // BL \\ (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Took me a while to realize the import of your remark... He's willing to give up on the Dunham and switch to a new maker, though I suggested he look for warehouse outlets that might still stock the discontinued model in his size and width. Our two daughters, with otherwise quite average builds, have inherited his wide feet (though fortunately not the aggravated high arches) and had to go through the tedious runaround of getting authorization to provide their own shoes and sandals for military service, since the IDF bureaucracy acknowledges and supplies only medium-width shoes. The situation of countless young people doing their compulsory, usually terribly demanding army service in ill-fitting, too-small shoes is just one of those thoughtless, petty cruelties that give the army a bad name and possibly contributes' to conscripts disaffection that later may lead to emigration. </rant> -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Pimps

Haha, I think I'm slightly too old to understand this kind of thing...but as far as I understand "pimp" is a good thing, probably because of rappers like Snoop Dogg who like to dress like pimps (or at least how they think pimps would dress). It might be related to that Seinfeld episode where Kramer is mistaken for a pimp because he's wearing the Technicolour Dreamcoat costume. The MTV show Pimp My Ride is also part of this - "pimp" here means "make it awesomely ridiculous-looking". There is also "pimp cup" which I see is a redirect. It is only very tangentially related to actual pimps. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I understand. I watch so little TV that I had never even heard of Pimp My Ride. // BL \\ (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought we might have an article on "pimp culture" but apparently we don't. Other references are the songs Big Pimpin' and P.I.M.P.; there is also the Players Ball (which apparently was really for pimps...but the hip-hop one mentioned in that article is what I'm thinking of). Adam Bishop (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Adam, you have ruined my day. I'd better explain. I don't watch a great deal of TV, but probably a little more than Bielle. I usually scan the weekly TV guide to see if there's anything of particular interest coming up. So I was aware of "Pimp My Ride". But I did not have the faintest idea what it meant. More to the point, it's such a disgustingly ugly expression that I did not even want to know what it meant. Now I do. Thanks to you. Is there any way, short of Alzheimer's, that acquired knowledge can be unacquired?  :)  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, nope! It will fester in your brain and you'll want to know more - you won't want to want to know more, but it will happen anyway. Soon you'll even be able to understand how to use -izzle. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No, no, a thousand times no! Even though I'm highly aware that "that which we resist, persists", I will fight the acquisition of such "knowledge" with every fibre of my being.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

British Empire

We've a persistant newbie at that article. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed. AGF and all that, I have suggested, rather than continuing to revert, he/she might talk the matter to the talk page. We shall see what happens now. // BL \\ (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you. I really appreciate your diligence, impartiality and patience in helping to mediate the discussions and to improve the article on New Creation Church. Thank you for setting a good example for new editors like myself to follow. I've learned much from you. Tanlipkee (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am still low on the learning curve myself, but you are quite welcome to anything I have to share. // BL \\ (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi BL. Sorry to trouble you, but I need your advice.

I just found out from a friend who visited 3in1Kopitam (a forum moderated by Ahnan) this morning that Ahnan (known by the username kojakbt22 in the 3in1Kopitam forum) had asked his forum members to help him and "to join in the battle" on wikipedia. Ahnan (aka kojakbt22) has also stated in one of the forum threads that if he should get banned from Wikipedia, he will consider sending an email to my company's CEO to accuse me of not spending time on my job, but on editing wikipedia.

The relevant discussion threads may be assessed by following the link below:

http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/main.asp?qu=new+creation+church&find=Search&webtag=3in1kopitiam&ctx=search&cl=832882&af=31&o=relevance&be=0

I decided to leave Ahnan a note on his user talk page to (i) tell him that I am aware of the discussions in his forum; and (ii) make it clear to him that he should not get my employer involved in this matter. Please see my note to Ahnan here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahnan#3in1kopitiam_forum.

I am not sure if there is anything else I can or should do to help prevent Ahnan from overstepping the boundaries and causing further inconvenience for himself and others. If you had encountered or heard of a similar case before, I would appreciate if you could let me know how it was handled. Thank you very much.Tanlipkee (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is no trouble for me, Tanlipkee. I am sorry that it is trouble for you. It is one of the problems that sometimes arises when a user edits in his own name. In my opinion, such threatening behaviour is despicable, but I am only one voice. I am in the process of consulting with someone who has more experience on WP as a whole and on the matters of stalking and "outing" in particlular. I will be back to you as soon as I hear. Have you looked at WP:Harassment yet? There is a section on off-wiki harassment, though it doesn not speak to exactly your situation. // BL \\ (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Bielle. Yes, I've read WP:Harassment, but like you say, it does not speak exactly to my situation, so I thought it is best that I seek counsel from the more experienced Wikipedians. I realized the link I've provided above does not bring you to the exact postings that I've talked about. I hope the following links will prove more helpful:

1. "Help bros, Am in Edit War with NCC": http://forums.delphiforums.com/3in1kopitiam/messages?msg=13547.1

2. "Wiki war continues on Joseph Prince": http://forums.delphiforums.com/3in1kopitiam/messages?msg=15199.1

3. "Updates on battle with NCC thugs on wiki": http://forums.delphiforums.com/3in1kopitiam/messages?msg=15566.1

More specifically:

(i) In a post time-stamped Jun-20 1.32am, 'torch bearer' disclosed my resume taken from my company's webpage (see: http://forums.delphiforums.com/3in1kopitiam/messages?msg=15566.4) and another one taken from the webpage of a training provider I work with (see: http://forums.delphiforums.com/3in1kopitiam/messages?msg=15566.5);

(ii) In a post time-stamped Jun-20 6.37am, 'kojakbt22' stated that if I were to get him banned from wiki, he will consider sending an email to my CEO with the intention of "telling them how free this guy is" (see: http://forums.delphiforums.com/3in1kopitiam/messages?msg=15566.14)

In a comment posted at 11:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC) in the Wiki Talk page, Ahnan disclosed that he was 'kojakbt22' of the www.3in1kopitiam.com Singapore's forum site (see second paragraph under the sub-heading "Views from both ends to provide balance": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Creation_Church#Criticisms_on_Joseph_Prince_by_Rien_Van_de_Kraats_from_the_Back_to_the_Bible_Workgroup).

I did not wish to engage Ahnan in the 3in1koptiam forum, so I only posted my comments in his Wiki user Talk page (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahnan#3in1kopitiam_forum).

I hope the above links and information are useful. Thanks!Tanlipkee (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Update:

'kojakbt22' of the 3in1kopitiam forum revealed that he is 'Ahnan' in Wikipedia. (see: http://forums.delphiforums.com/3in1kopitiam/messages?msg=15566.30)Tanlipkee (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahnan suggested the idea of becoming a shareholder of the publicly listed company I am working in, for the purpose of questioning me face-to-face at the company's Annual General Meeting (see: http://forums.delphiforums.com/3in1kopitiam/messages?msg=15566.56)Tanlipkee (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

RD Talk page

The IP (likely Lightcurrent sock) reverted the archiving of the talk page. I reverted his reversion. Once archived, the old topics should not be on the main talk page. -- kainaw™ 20:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Re

Hello, Bielle. You have new messages at Drew R. Smith's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

wotcha bielle ( or is it // BL //?)

ahh bielle, it has been too long, been busy extending house (not me personnal, can't nail two bit's of wood together...) and the tribe keep jah busy. Things are good, the job i started last year is a godsend, no stress, no desk, no paperwork, no computer...aahh. The youngest mankster celebrated his 2nd birthday not that long ago, and is just bouncy full of fun, energy and an amazing capacity to cover himself, the furniture, the floor, the walls and the cat in whatever he happens to be eating. middle mankster is fitting into his birth order as if he was born to do it (ha,ha perry made a funny) has started nursery and wanted me to drive the car into some bushes tonight 'to see what it would be like, daddy' and darling daughter is in P2 (think second grade in your part of the world?), now absoultely knows everthing, breaks my heart everytime she looks at mw with her brown eyes(espically when she's being ever so serious) and corrected my grammer the other day. Mrs mankster is as ever, beautiful, busy and told me i'm now to old to go and see the Chemical Brothers... you can never be to old to do anything! oh and her lentil soup won second prize at the village fete, we now have to call it mummy's award winning soup. how high grows mount washing done? and mister bielle, still fighting indepentant and harty? hope i find you well and i have being dipping in wiki when i could, always happy to see you, jack and rocket (and now the lady) still here. Perry-mankster (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We are

watching you! Rockpocket 19:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I might be able to guess about 4 of the watchers. Who the other 21 might be, I have no idea. It's good to be under a friendly eye! // BL \\ (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Riffak

Spelled backwards ... So yes, definitely revert - Alison ^❤ 18:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see that. I was so caught up in not knowing Afrikaans that it never occurred to me to look for one of the (about) 3 words of it I do know. Ah well, I did understand the intention, which was not complimentary. Thanks for keeping track! // BL \\ (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo's User Page

Just like to ask why I (and presumably others) are not allowed to edit Jimbo's user page despite a clear invitation to do so. I would say my edit fits in with the rest of the page, is constructive and meets all policies. So what's the problem? (Argh! The meta-references burn!) 58.168.73.221 (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any problem. :-) You did edit the page, three times in fact, and, as also explained on the page, your edits have been reverted. The hardest type of vandalism to catch is the small, apparently insignificant change that is just "slipped into" an article. I'm sure you don't need examples, but numbers and dates are often affected. While your specific amendments weren't precisely vandalism, and no one called them that, they were a call to vandalism, and thus not something to be encouraged. Genuine edits of worth don't have to be "slipped in" anywhere. If you disgaree, I suggest you start a new section on User talk:Jimbo Wales and ask him what he thinks. That's the usual course, a talk-page discussion, when new text is reverted and the writer is unhappy. Bielle (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Usage and Abusage

I can certainly empathise with that story - I guess there are quite a few of us "word geeks" on Wikipedia! Grutness...wha? 07:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Dots

Merged comments from User talk:Elonka

I notice that the Wikidots proposal and our discussion of it have been deleted. Is it possible to get a copy of the whole of the page? Bielle (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC) If you don't want it on site any more, my email access is open. Thanks, Bielle (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it's an idea that's no longer needed. The data on the popups tab for a particular user is sufficient: A quick indicator of someone's access, number of edits and when their account was created. That serves most of the needs that my proposal was intending to address. :) --Elonka 03:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The proposal was certainly yours but about half the commentary I wrote. If you don't want to provide your text, perhaps you would be kind enough to email me a copy of my contributions. I can't seem to find the exchanges in my contributions' list. Thanks, Bielle (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, most of your commentary was about how much you thought the proposal was a horrible idea that would cause lots of drama. I'm a bit confused why you want to bring it back, as opposed to just saying, "Good riddance"? --Elonka 03:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. If my contributions turn out to be as you have stated, then I doubt I will keep them long. I would like to decide that for myself, though. Email keeps it all still off site. Thanks, Bielle (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble thinking of any good reason to undelete the page. Let me think about it for a bit? --Elonka 04:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You needn't have thought about undeleting it at all. That wasn't the request, but please do not trouble yourself further. I have found what I needed. Bielle (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

On granting confirmed status early...

Just a combination of WP:AGF and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. The user has claimed to have read all relevent image policies, seems knowledgable and willing to learn on the job, so there's no additional need to force him to sit around and wait 2 days for no reason. He asked nicely, demonstrated competance, so I granted it. There's nothing he can't screw up today that he couldn't screw up in 2 more days, so it would be entirely moot to force him to do so. --Jayron32 03:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. It never occurred to me that a new user would be just "sitting around waiting" for confirmation or that it would be open to debate to "force" him to do so. Your experience is greater than mine and you have answered my question. Thanks again. Bielle (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Prince

Regarding my reverted edits to Joseph Prince Page:

You said that my comments violate the neutral point of view, but clearly the comments made about him are not neutral, but derogatory. So, it dont make sense. jordanooo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanooo (talk • contribs) 22:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I recall, the original statements were just factual, without any judgements added. I will, however, go back and take another look over the next 24 hours to make sure that the original text was not weighted inappropriately. I will put a note on your talk page when I have done so. Bielle (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Richmond

Hi Bielle, you deleted my addition about Richmond having a reputation for being rough. This is something that is self-evident to anyone who lives in the Bay area. I think you should reconsider removing this particular point in the future. I'm going to put something back, and I'll add 20 citations if necessary. Let's not be pedantic here. modify

What is "self-evident to anyone who lives in the Bay Area" is not evidence for the rest of us. We do need a source for statements that may be contentious, for a start, and then making such a value judgement in the lede may be undue weight for a concept that does not appear elsewhere in the article. I will copy this discussion to the article's talk page where it now belongs. Bielle (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hello, Bielle. I know it's considered passé or somehow politically incorrect* to use this form of words these days - but stuff it, I'm going to wish you "Merry Christmas" and nobody can stop me. Here goes:

• Merry Christmas, Bielle, and may 2010 be a landmark, cornerstone, groundbreaking year for you and those who love you.

* We're supposed to have "happy holidays" these days - which I hope you do, but that rather misses the point. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you, dear Jack. As my Jewish friends have no problem wishing me a "Merry Christmas", the rest of us could afford a little less of the p.c. and more of the j.c. -and that from a committed (I almost wrote "confirmed") atheist. I wish the same to you and yours with the beginning of a new decade, from Santa in the snow with a roaring fire in the wood stove to Santa in the sand with a roaring air-conditioner. Bielle (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Re 2010: Thanks, Bielle. I've been in denial about this, preferring to believe nothing has changed. But I've got to return to work this morning (damn!) after an 11-day break (oh, bliss!), so I guess 2010 really has arrived after all. I just can't get enthusiastic about it for myself, but I hope it's a good year for you. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Macniece

Actually, I nominated User:MacNeice for deletion. if you notice, the "N" is capitalized, while the real user is Macniece with a lowercase "n".  fetchcomms☛ 18:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct (just you aren't supposed to add "Dr." or "PhD" in the article, per WP:CREDENTIAL).  fetchcomms☛ 18:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ought not et al

See reply on my talk page. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)